Thursday, April 30, 2015

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for two-and-a-half hours on two questions.

1. Is it constitutional for states to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman?

2. Is one state required to recognize legal marriages in another state?

While
it is impossible to know what is going on inside the head of each
justice, that won't stop observers from trying to figure it out.
Without trying to get too far inside anyone's head, here are a few
important things we learned from yesterday's arguments.

1. Justice Kennedy may be hesitant to tell all of human history they were wrong about marriage.

Justice
Anthony Kennedy is generally considered to be the swing vote in this
case. But his question early in the argument indicated that he may be
hesitant to throw out the definition of marriage that has been used at
all times and in all places.

"One
of the problems is when you think about these cases you think about
words or cases, and-and the word that keeps coming back to me in this
case is-is millennia, plus time. First of all, there has not been really
time, so the Respondents say, for the federal system to engage in this
debate...But still, 10 years is -- I don't even know how to count the
decimals when we talk about millennia. This definition has been with us
for millennia. And it-it's very difficult for the Court to say, oh,
well, we-we know better."

This
sounds like a very good argument to allow the question about the
definition of marriage to be decided by the people through the
legislative process rather than by these nine justices.

Chief
Justice Roberts got Mary L. Bonauto, lead attorney for the effort to
redefine marriage, to acknowledge that prior to 2001, no jurisdiction in
human history had ever defined marriage as a relationship between
people of the same gender. He questioned whether there weren't actually
rational reasons to define marriage in that way that had nothing to do
with homosexuality.

2. The Court is thinking about the impact on religious freedom as well.

Unlike
the political activists who insist that same-sex marriage has no impact
on religious freedom, the Supreme Court seems to be fully aware of the
conflict between religious freedom and the redefinition of marriage.

The
first exchange on the subject came when Justice Scalia asked Ms.
Bonauto if clergy would be required to perform same-sex marriages.
Bonauto insisted they would not, noting that Jewish Rabbi's are not
currently obligated to perform non-Jewish weddings.

The
second exchange came when Chief Justice Roberts asked the United States
Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, about the impact on religious
schools.

"Would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to same-sex couples?"

Solicitor
General Verrilli did not say no. He just said that the issue would be
handled on a state-by-state basis and depend on whatever
"accommodations" the state was interested in giving to religious
schools.

"You
know, I-I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more
specifics, but it's certainly going to be an issue. I-I don't deny
that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is-it is going to be an
issue."

Consider yourself warned.

3. Dignity is a major issue in this case

In their opening remarks, both Ms. Bonauto and Solicitor General Verrilli talk about dignity.

Their
primary argument seems to be that the current definition of marriage
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment because it denies dignity to people in a same-sex relationship.

That
is how proponents of redefining marriage want to convince the justices
-- and the public -- to think about marriage. Don't think about future
generations, don't think about children, don't think about the
implications of the reality that we are a gendered species, just think
about what it does to someone when they feel "excluded."

Giving
proponents of real marriage reason to be concerned about the ultimate
outcome of this case, Justice Kennedy seemed to sympathize with the
dignity argument. Attorney John J. Bursch, arguing against the
redefinition of marriage, made the statement that the purpose of
marriage is not to infer dignity. But Kennedy responded with,

"Just
in - just in fairness to you, I don't understand this not dignity
bestowing. I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage. It bestows
dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage."

So what's going to happen?

Ultimately,
Justice Kennedy seems conflicted. He seems to recognize that there are
reason to preserve the current definition of marriage that have nothing
to do with prejudice toward gay people (a position I agree with) which
suggests he will preserve the right of people to define marriage for
themselves. At the same time, he seems to believe the purpose of
marriage is to infer dignity upon private citizens (a position I don't
share) which seems to suggest he would be willing to take the issue away
from the people and settle it as a constitutional matter.

It might also be true that none of these questions are the issues that will ultimately decide this case.

What is the impact of this decision?

If the Supreme Court finds that marriage is unconstitutional, every state will be required to issue same-sex marriage license.

If
the Supreme Court determines it is constitutional to define marriage
between a man and a woman, then the states would remain free to define
marriage for themselves.

The
Constitutional amendments in 26 states that have been overturned by the
courts would remain in effect. Only the 11 states that have redefined
marriage by popular vote or through the legislative process would have
same-sex marriage.

What can you do?

Pray for the court as they deliberate. Every day. The implications of this decision are tremendous, but,

"The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wills." Prov. 21:1

You can listen to the entire, fascinating conversation, or read a transcript by clicking here.

Click here to read what was happening outside the Supreme Court while the arguments were being made.

A lot happened and didn’t
happen this month. The state House Democrats introduced and passed a $39 billion spending package. Then they refused to vote on the $1.5
billion in new taxes they needed to pay for their plan, forcing a taxpayer-funded special session.

The state Senate Republicans
urged House Democrats to act on their bi-partisan transportation package
before the end of the 2015 legislative session. Unfortunately, they did
not.

And, Democrat State Auditor Troy Kelley lost the public’s trust after being indicted on 10-counts of criminal activity
by a federal grand jury. Yet, he refused to resign.

Throughout this month, Shift has worked hard to hold Democrats accountable
for their actions and inactions. We are committed to working just as hard next month, but we need your help—can you chip in $3?

The special
session has already begun, and will be in full swing next month. We need your support to effectively challenge the higher spending and taxes
message sure to be trumpeted by Democrats and their far-left supporters.

Will you help us
meet our end-of-month goal? We need to raise an additional $2,105 so we can continue our work.

Alexis de Tocqueville defined soft tyranny in his book Democracy in America,Volume II (1840), saying the government covers the surface of society with a network where "The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

Arkansas businesswoman Jan Morgan is experiencing this first hand, and she is standing against it. Morgan owns a "live fire" indoor shooting range. Last September she wrote a blog about why she has banned Muslims from her facility. This week the Washington Post reported that after the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union complained to the government, the Justice Department sent a brief email to the Post confirming it was "monitoring the matter." This prompted a response from CAIR saying, "We welcome this positive development and hope it leads to a thorough investigation of clear violations of the civil rights of American Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim by the gun range owner."

Morgan runs the Gun Cave Shooting Range as a private club, with dues-paying members. According to the Post, "Because of this, Morgan believes her decision to exclude Muslims is protected by a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives policy that gives range owners the discretion to turn away potential customers who pose a threat to the safety of others." Already, people have been sent to become members that she has refused and they are claiming she is profiling illegally. Morgan's blog gives 10 reasons why her range is a "Muslim Free Zone," among them are the 109 verses in the Koran "commanding hate, murder and terror" of those not submitting to Islam.

Morgan says the US Constitution doesn't protect a theocracy. She said, "Islam is the union of political, legal, and religious ideologies. In other words, law, religion and state are forged together to form what Muslims refer to as "The Nation of Islam." It is given the sovereign qualities of a nation with clerics in the governing body and Sharia law all in one. This is a Theocracy, not a religion."

Morgan is taking a logical, legal, and morally correct stance. The pro-Islam Justice Department and its terrorist-sympathizing "civil rights" conspirators are practicing soft tyranny against this US citizen.

Ephesians 6:13 says, "Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand."

This is an example of soft tyranny. Soft tyranny is evil. Morgan is standing against it. So should we.

The
National Association
for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose
citizens' organization dedicated to
preserving and
protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms
through an aggressive program designed to
mobilize public opposition to anti-gun
legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights' mailing address is
P.O.
7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can
be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its
web address is www.NationalGunRights.org/

Where Do I put My Hands?

Richard MannEmpty Cases Blog

Do
you know what to do with your hands, and your gun, during a fight while
your weapon is drawn but you aren't shooting? The proper technique
could save your life.

There will come a time in every gun fight when your weapon will be
drawn but you are not shooting. How do you protect your gun and yourself
during this time?
It's important to know proper shooting technique because, well,
making the right moves will save your life. In reality, making the right
moves when not shooting will also save your life in an altercation.
How do you best protect your gun? How do you best protect yourself?
Check out the video above to make yourself more ready and more
protected. After all, proper gun presentation and retention is the key
to avoiding the need to use your gun at all.

Representative
Ted Yoho (R-FL) has introduced a House Resolution (HR 198) that
specifically defines what the constitutional term "High Crimes and
Misdemeanors" means so the House will be able to bring coherent and
supportable charges against wayward politicians and other office
holders.

Mr.
Yoho's resolution has been referred to the Judiciary Committee and
America must join forces to compel this committee to pass it out to the
whole House immediately.

Once
HR 198 is passed by the entire House, Obama will no longer be allowed
to declare amnesty for illegal aliens, hide documents from Congress or
ignore the laws on the books without risking impeachment.

The
rule of law -- righteous law based on God's word, such as the laws
found in our Constitution -- is the bedrock of a peaceful, civilized and
prosperous society. Obama's
thwarting of the law has gone on far too long and is leading us down
the road to moral, spiritual and fiscal bankruptcy as a nation.This
is why you must keep the pressure on Congress to hold Obama in check,
as the Constitution requires of the legislative branch.Send your FaxGrams to the House today!

Then, please tell others about this amazing effort to finally define "high crimes and misdemeanors" by sending them this link:

Finally,
after you have sent your FaxGrams, contact your Representative in
Congress at 202-224-3121. Tell him or her to vote in support of HR 198
which defines High Crimes and Misdemeanors once and for all.

Top Stories• Miscarried at 22 Weeks, These Triplets are Changing the Abortion Debate • After Mom’s Baby Cut Out of Her Womb, Colorado Democrats Vote Against Unborn Victims Bill • ISIS Terrorists Rape and Impregnate Girls as Young as 9, Force Them to Have Abortions• News Anchor: Boyfriend Forced Me to Have Abortion or “I Will Kill You and Your Unborn Child”More Pro-Life News• Activist Exploits Baltimore Riots to Fundraise for Abortion: Don’t Let Riots Stop You From Aborting• Why is This Woman Holding a Biohazard Bag as a Mom is Hospitalized After a Botched Abortion?• Dead Newborn Girl Found at Ohio University Was Born Alive and Suffocated to Death• You Won’t Believe Where This Mother Gave Birth After Not Knowing She Was Pregnant• Mother Gives Birth to Miracle Baby Girl After 10 Miscarriages in 10 Years• Thousands of Babies Born Every Year With Brain Damage Because Their Moms Did This While Pregnant • Why Did the Vatican Host Two Abortion Advocates at an Environmental Conference?• Planned Parenthood Considers Lawsuit to Overturn Kansas Ban on Dismemberment Abortions• Pro-Life Group Exposes Massive Fraud at Chicago-Area Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz• Irish Woman Acquitted of Helping Her Friend Kill Herself in an Assisted Suicide • One-Third of Quebec Doctors Would Euthanize Mentally Ill Patients Without Consent • Colombia Health Minister Drawing Up Guidelines for Doctors to Kill Patients in Euthanasia

Every
single entity on that list lobbied the State Department for political
favors while Hillary Clinton was Obama's Secretary of State.

The
State of Qatar and "related entities" donated up to $5.8 million to the
Clintons while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State.

What are those Muslim "related entities" and who is in them?

We
do not know, but we do know that the State of Qatar is part of the
Wahabi Sunni sect of Islam, the same brand of Islam followed by Al Qaeda
and other terrorist organizations. The
Clinton Foundation has received a free pass to conduct itself as a
charitable organization while REAL Christian groups have been bullied by
the federal government.

Samaritan's
Purse, the Billy Graham Evangelical Association and the Biblical Record
(a news publication of the Southern Baptist Convention) were all
audited by the IRS.

Authentic
Christian groups and churches are kicked around and persecuted by Obama
while the Clintons are allowed to take in cash and not even report it
in many cases!

The
best way to prevent this abuse and protect Christian churches is to
treat the Clinton Foundation the same way under the rule of law! The
federal government will stop bullying churches if we demand the same
treatment for liberal pro-abortion groups masquerading as charities,
like the Clinton Foundation!

The
type of corruption that ensues from bribery of public officials is so
great that the Bible condemns the practice in at least 65 verses, such
as Exodus 23:8, "You shall take no gift (bribe): for a gift blinds the
wise and perverts the words of the righteous."

If
Muslim "related entities" donate millions of dollars to the Clinton
Foundation while lobbying Hillary Clinton at the State Department, how
else could anyone see it?

These are bribes!

Hillary
Clinton hopes to be the next president of the United States and it is
clear that she is unfit for office! This type of influence-peddling
represents everything that is wrong in Washington, D.C. and the only way
it will stop is if you speak out!

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

1. Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between people of the same gender?

2. Does the 14th Amendment require one state to acknowledge a valid marriage from another state?

Fundamentally,
the question for the court is not whether same-sex "marriage" is good
policy, but whether the public is allowed to debate the issue through
the democratic process.

The text of the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage.

As
you are well aware, one side argues that marriage is a relationship
designed to confer a series of legal rights and benefits and give
societal approval to the life-long commitment adults make to each other.
As such, it is inappropriate to distinguish between commitments.

The
other side argues that while people should be free to form whatever
relationships they desire, marriage exists not primarily for the benefit
of the adults but to connect one generation to the next. The fact that
all children have a mother and father justifies encouraging the one kind
of relationship that makes that possible.

Either the court will conclude that this is a political issue to be decided through the legislative process, or it will decide that the Constitution forbids such a debate because there is a constitutional right to marry someone of the same gender.

If
it finds a constitutional right to marry someone of the same gender, it
would become illegal for a state to specifically promote the
arrangement that makes it possible for a child to know both their mother
and father.

Same-sex "marriage" would then be compulsory in all 50 states.

Either
way, the debate won't be over soon. But it could be intensified if the
Supreme Court tells one side of the debate their ideas have been banned
from consideration.

They
may be offended simply because, for a certain segment of the
population, being offended is an involuntary reaction to encountering
ideas they disagree with.

Still, the question makes a point all of us defending real marriage need to remember.

The
fact that marriage is not a relationship between two men is not a
judgment, it's an observation like saying, "An orange is not an apple."
The debate over which one is better or worse (or neither) is distinct
from the acknowledgement that they are in fact different kinds of fruit.

If
the Supreme Court makes it illegal for the law to recognize the fact
that some relationships are different from others, people will still
figure it out.

"What kind of marriage?" we'll ask.

Of
course, that question might soon lead to protests and pickets. So the
world will adapt signals or handshakes that allow the kind of
information that was once communicated through a wedding ring to be
shared without incurring the wrath of those who think belief in gender
difference should be verboten.

Sweet, sweet tolerance.

But the idea that the world will soon be blind to gender is fanciful.

Pray that the Supreme Court doesn't repeat the mistake of Roe v. Wade, which inflamed a cultural debate, by silencing the people's voice on the matter.

However,
even if the Supreme Court takes the position that the Emperor's new
clothes are stunning, know that you won't be the only one watching the
parade who knows better.

Monday, April 27, 2015

It
is now 69 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail
is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews,
20 million Russians, 10 Million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests
who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated.

Now,
more than ever, it's imperative to make sure the world never forgets,
because there are others who would like to do it again.Can you say "ISIS "?

This
e-mail is intended to reach 40-million people worldwide! Join us and be
a link in the memorial chain and help us distribute it around the
World.

Please send this on to people you know and ask them to continue the memorial chain.

Each
week we get more people asking to join the Puget Sound Conservative
Underground. That's great! We're approaching a wonderful number of
members - 1776! Who will be this magical numbered member? Suggest to
your "right-minded" friends/family to join.
It's important to note what you're asking to join (as our "Underground" title is scarier than our actual purpose)... The PSCU has these three basic objectives: 1. Promote Conservative Principles. 2. Provide Conservative Fellowship. 3. Encourage Conservative Action.
Members are asked to share ideas, information, and be encouraged by
other conservatives as we try to stay sane in this crazy, liberal area
we live in. It's important to get together (virtually and in-person)
with other likeminded individuals in the greater-Seattle area to
network, rant, and build friendships.

As Ronald Reagan said:
"The future of our country, the direction that we go as a people,
whether we move ahead to meet the challenges of the future or slide back
into the irresponsible policies of the past, will be determined by
those who get involved."
Psalm 13 explains why Conservatives need a group such as the PSCU: "Walk with the wise and become wise, for a companion of fools suffers harm."
Please note:
a) As the moderator, Dan Michael will remove any postings with foul
language or that repeatedly ridicule or berate fellow conservatives.
b) When asking to join the PSCU, if you have a closed Facebook page
and it can't be easily assessed that you indeed are a full spectrum
Conservative (social conservative/fiscal conservative/strong national
defense conservative), please message Dan to provide information to
confirm such. We keep membership restricted to Conservatives, as we
don't want our group to be "infiltrated" by liberals....or by
Ron-Paul-Libertarians or by mushy moderate Republicans smile emoticon ...and we want you to feel comfortable in our group.

Followers of TACWASH Blog

Distinctive Doctrine

Distinctive Doctrine is my fourth book to be published as a self-published print on demand edition. It deals with a topic that is a passion of mine. After salvation in Christ, the next important thing in a believer's life should be finding a true New Testament local congregation in which to serve the Lord. How do you know which one is the right one? It is simple. Take a look at the doctrine and practice of the churches of the New Testament and look for one that has the same landmarks. Having been a Pastor of a fundamental sovereign grace independent landmark Baptist Church for over 35 years, naturally I write from that position. I hope many readers take many blessings from the reading of this latest effort.

The Obedience of a Christian Man

Most folks know of William Tyndale as the man who translated the first English Bible, which - with certain royal guidelines, was used to transcribe the 1611 edition authorized by King James. The “Obedience of a Christian Man” was a primer on Christian living that was used to spark what is called the English Reformation. It is a practical book on how we are to live as believers. Children are to obey their parents, servants are to obey their masters and husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved His Congregation. The wife is to be in subjection to her own husband as the Congregation is to Christ, and the King is to rule in God’s stead over the realm according to the Law of God, not after his own imagination. Tyndale wrote in the days when the “divine right of the King” was the mindset. The idea of Natural Law (which agrees with scripture) is the best rule for the commonwealth of society was only beginning to develop. In America, since 1776, the so-called “divine right of the King” belongs to WE THE PEOPLE. Tyndale taught that if the secular rulers command us to do evil, we are to disobey saying we are commanded otherwise of God. He also exposed the hypocrisy and wickedness of the powerful religious institution in control at that time and how the leaders of that hierarchy set aside the holy scripture for their lies and man made traditions.

One Vote

I have liked Dr. Ben Carson from the very first time I heard him speak at the Prayer Breakfast in Washington D.C. When he criticized the "Affordable Care Act" with Mr. Obama sitting only a few seats away from him, I thought to myself, this Dr. is a true patriot. The more I heard of him the more I liked him. When Americans all across the country started "clamoring" RUN BEN RUN, I joined in with them. His autobiography GIFTED HANDS is a must read (you should at least rent the movie). ONE VOTE is a very practical book with a lot of info in it. You can get a free copy of it in the form of an e-book. I was thrilled to hear the Dr. announce his candidacy in the 2016 race for the White House. If he only gets 17% of the "black vote" he cannot lose. He is my choice and he has my ONE VOTE.

Gifted Hands

This book is the Ben Carson Story, an autobiography. I first learned about Dr. Carson after hearing his remarks at a national prayer breakfast in Washington D.C. in which he warned about the dangers and complications that would come from the passing of the Affordable Care Act commonly called Obama Care. For a while after that prayer breakfast speech Dr. Carson attracted a lot of media attention for his bold remarks in the presence of President Obama. The more questions he answered in interviews the more conservative patriots in America liked what they heard and many asked the question, would you consider running for President in 2016? Dr. Carson responded that he had no desire to do that but if there was a clamoring by the voters for him to do it; he would have to consider it. Soon there was a movement called “Run Ben Run” to show the good Doctor there was indeed a clamoring for him to run. This book also is a movie and is available on DVD. The book however goes into much more detail about events in Ben’s life. Ben was raised in poverty. His mother, a single parent in Detroit, Michigan having only a 3rd grade education, brought him and his brother Curtis up to be an outstanding Engineer and a world renowned Pediatric Neurosurgeon. Dr. Carson is most well known for putting a surgical team together from Johns Hopkins Hospital to successfully separate Patrick and Benjamin Binder, Siamese twins joined at the head in 1987. The book tells of several other surgeries and because they all deal with children in hopeless condition, it is quite an emotional read. After reading Gifted Hands, I am convinced that Dr. Carson is what we need in the White House, to turn America back onto the right path again. When I say that, the first objection usually offered is, “He has no political experience.” My answer to that is, “That is precisely why I like him. It is the professional politicians that have gotten us into the mess we are in today and someone like Ben Carson would be a breath of fresh air.” The bean counters in the “Run Ben Run” campaign have crunched the numbers and determined that if Ben runs for President in 2016 and only gets 17% of the “black vote” he cannot lose.

Life of Washington

Here is 295 pages, including appendixes, of historic biography that is not butchered by modern day secular revisionists. It was originally published in 1842 by the American Sunday School Union and is filled with quotes directly from the very journals of Washington and anecdotes given by eyewitness accounts of events in the life of the father of our nation. If there is one book that gives a true and honest account of the life of Washington, this is it. This volume has tenderness about it even though it is set in very troublesome times. There is often insight as to how the patriotic women of the revolutionary days helped behind the scenes and the relationship between Washington and his revered mother is an aspect of the story that is thoughtfully penned. The story of the treason of Benedict Arnold showed in particular how the providence of God prevented that chapter from being much more harmful to the Colonists than it was at the time. The modern political correct crowd will literally freak out when they read how easy it is to write the truth about the Christian influence in the lives of American founding fathers like General George Washington.

I have the hard copy of Grudem's book discussed here. It is available now in electronic format. Heard about it at a local non-partisan political activist meetup group I've been involved with. Bought it on the cheap through Alibris. Took it with me to a conference on "Understanding the Times" back in May of 2011 sponsored by Family Research Council and Watchmen on the Wall. Grudem was one of the speakers. Got him to sign my copy. :) I think it is well outlined and a great reference. I think the first chapter is worth the Kindle $4.99 price. It comes from a biblical world view and is therefore more conservative than liberal on several points. The only negative reviews I've seen are from obvious leftists who scoffed at the biblical references and call it a mere Republican 101 Primer. ”

American Politics

I met the author at a local non-partisan politically active meet-up group. We had a lot in common and when I heard he had written this book I grabbed it. Roy is an active duty Army Chaplain and worked on this book while deployed in Afghanistan. The book begins with some dated references to the Presidential campaign of 2012 but has some valid points that lead to the conclusion. Many American conservatives find it incredible that at this late date our country seems blind to the move toward a totalitarian form of government in what was the land of the free. Using scripture and un-rewritten U.S. history, Roy makes the case that God is not a Socialist and approves of a republican form of government. He shows how our founding fathers were God-fearing men who saw the providence of God at work in the establishment of America. The last chapters reveal a domino affect leading to a “last resort” which we are rapidly approaching. This is a passionate and patriotic call to action. When he signed my book, Roy said, “Our freedom wasn’t free. We can either vote or fight to keep it. I’d rather vote.”

If It Is'nt Close, They Can't Cheat.

“First of all, this book is dated because it was written in the heat of the 2004 United States Election. But it has some very good information in it, none the less. You should read it for the sake of knowing the basics of modern day politics in America. The basic difference between a D and a R is this: one will get us killed and the other wants to kill those that are trying to kill us. The Culture of Corruption is blatant in D.C. but it is particularly championed by the party thatproclaimed in 2000 that they will do ANYTHING to win. The people have an uphill battle keeping good officials in office when our elections are unfairly tallied due to rigged ballot boxes and intimidation at the poles by leftist thugs, big labor, Community activist organizations, misleading left of center main stream media polls and the likes. Look where the six main political persuasions fall in the two main parties: three in one and three in the other. See them lined up side by side to get the big picture of modern politics.”

BIAS by Bernard Goldberg

Bernie states the obvious in this book. The book is ten years old and although the truth of it is generally seen in all quarters, even today it is still ignored or denied by Bernie’s old friends in the main stream media. Goldberg himself confesses that he has been a lifetime voter on the left side of the ticket. As a journalist however, he is willing to speak out regarding the fact that a liberal bias is the mindset of most of our media elite. He tried many times to show the need for a less slanted view of the news from within the machinery of CBS but finally resorted to writing and editorial article on the subject in the Wall Street Journal. His career at CBS was doomed. They blackballed him right away. Then dabbled with him for a while and finally let him retire with his pension. I highly recommend this book not because of the obvious truth of it but that we may better understand why the elite of the media continue as they do. They honestly do not think that they are leftists. To understand that statement, you must read the explanation in the words of a career liberal journalist who only wants people to face the facts.

Common Sense, The Rights of Man

Common Sense, Rights of Man. and other essential writings of Thomas Paine.Signet Classics 200th Anniversary Edition.

378 pages of very enlightened and inspiring words. Paine was friends with Ben Franklin and other great men of that era. Even Edmond Burke in England was a friend of Paine until 1790 and their debate on the French Revolution. Common Sense was originally published in pamphlet form and was used greatly to inspire the American Colonialists to sever ties with England. The Crisis begins with the famous quote, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” It was read by George Washington, and the American soldiers, by order of the General, to help bolster moral in some of the dark days of the revolution. The Rights of Man was the lengthiest piece in the book and was a defense of the French Revolution against remarks made by Edmund Burke in England. The Age of Reason was the most discouraging piece in the book for me as Paine acclaims his deism, and although raised as a Quaker, his skepticism becomes overbearing.

The Anti-Federalist Papers

Here is 406 pages about some of the most important events in the history of America. The decade of 1770 – 1780 was a crucial time. After the Revolutionary War and the break from Briton, most modern Americans do not realize how much thought, discussion and debate occurred in the establishment of the founding documents of the Constitution. After the Declaration of Independence and the Colonial Rebellion, a Constitutional Convention was held by our founding fathers to draft the founding documents of our nation in 1787. Until that time, our national politics was based on the Articles of Confederation 1777. A copy of this document is in the appendix of this book. The draft of the Constitution that came out of the convention was the result of great debate and that was only the beginning. Some of our founders saw the need for a stronger central government. They were called Federalists. Their arguments in favor of the immediate ratification of the draft presented by the Constitutional Convention are found in The Federalist Papers. These are articles written and published in newspapers and sometimes in pamphlets for the citizens to read. Not having radio & television this is how we learned about the political issues in those days. In answer to the Federalist articles, there were the Anti-Federalists who also wrote responses called the Anti-Federalist Papers against the immediate ratification of the Constitution voicing concern of the loss of liberty to a government that might turn into what we fought to free ourselves from in the revolution. Federalists like Alexander Hamilton wrote articles under the pen name Publius and Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry wrote under other names like Brutus. Although the Anti-Federalists lost the debate, we have them to thank for the Bill of Rights being added as amendments our Constitution.

Original Intent

This is a very important book for people of faith to read regarding what has happened to the religious climate of public modern America. Unbelieving haters of biblical standards have taken over America from within. By rewriting and or ignoring the original intent of the authors of the founding documents of America, a so-called politically correct movement has corrupted the American way by usurping every branch of our government and is turning our constitutional republic of free citizens into a socialist democracy that is subservient to the elitists of globalism. Learn about the misleading metaphor used in this arena and read the actual quotes of the founding fathers in contrast to what modern politicians, activists and justices say about Christianity in the public square.

Backfired

This is a great book for showing how the doctrine and practice of “Tolerance” began in the Colonies of what became the United States of America. In modern thought, tolerance is putting up with somebody or something that is irritating or unpleasant to you. However, as surely as historical revisionists have rewritten American History, the original definition of tolerance has changed too. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of The English Language defined it as – Allowance of religious opinions and modes of worship in a State when they are different from those of the established church… For example, the Protestant religion might be tolerated in France and the Roman Catholic religion might be tolerated in England. Tolerance did not begin in Saudi Arabia where it still means the death penalty if someone converts from Islam to another religion. Nor did it come out of Communist China or the former atheistic Soviet Union where those who believed differently than the State had to meet in underground groups or be killed or imprisoned. It did not come from Medieval Europe, the Middle East, Africa or the Far East. Tolerance is an American Judeo-Christian contribution to the world. The reason the old definition of tolerance is important is because in the 15-1700’s, what ever the King believed the kingdom had to practice or be persecuted or flee. Many of those who fled came to North America where the concept of toleration began to grow. The first Colonists were Separatists and Puritans from England who did not immediately start to offer toleration to others mainly because they still feared that if others gained power it would rekindle the persecution from which they had fled. More and more pilgrims began to flee the religious persecution of Europe and slowly but surely the Colonists began to realize that if they expected others to tolerate them then they must also tolerate others. The book shows a list of where different denominations had settlements in the Colonies of the 1600’s. In early America, the Puritans began to tolerate other Protestants and Separatists, then Catholics, then any who professed Christianity, then Jews, and in time, all Monotheists, then polytheists and other non-Christian religions, and eventually anti-religionists and atheists. This, of course, all took time but here is the rub. Our tolerance has evolved to where the modern “Politically Correct” crowd has taken control of our government and reversed the role of tolerance. We are at the place now where God, the Bible and Christianity are banned from the public square in America, especially in our public schools. Even worse, people of faith are being forced to legitimatize acts like abortion and immoral lifestyles that are offensive to their conscience or else be branded as “intolerant” and suffer penalty under new laws that pervert the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As the early Pilgrims feared, the government has once again become tyrannical, this time, not by the so-called divine right of the King but in the name of pseudo tolerance. Those who brought tolerance to the world are no longer tolerated. Where did we go wrong? How did this all BACK FIRE on the people of God and the Bible? Those that attack the Bible, public prayer and the display of religious symbols say they are doing it in the name of tolerance but the real question is – Are they not the ones that are being intolerant? Tolerance does not come by lowering our standards or forcing people to approve what is wrong in their heart.

Holy Bible KJV

I've been reading this book yearly for many years and I NEVER get tired of it. I believe it is the inspired word of God. God is real and God has spoken. God does not LIE. God has revealed to us His will in the 66 books of the Bible. All other books, people, lives and things must be judged on the basis of what is said in THIS one book. LJK

Top Baptist

About Me

Killion is an Irish name that means grandson of war but I am a lover. Dad was a career soldier. I was born at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma but grew up all over the place. Saved 1958. Married 1965. Surrendered to preach 1974. Bi-vocational preacher recently retired from secular job with Transit agency in Tacoma, Washington. Pastor of The Lords Baptist Church. Two daughters. Four grandchildren. One Great-grandson. Author.